The "moral arguments" which Mr. Schuster made on stereotypes must also be challenged, and it would be much easier for me to expose the fallacies had he been willing to join in efforts toward conceptual clarity. He chose, however, not to answer my specific questions. Hence, without his co-operation, I must take great length-- and more than one submission-- to make some crucial points. In this submission I concentrate on the role of one charismatic institution concerned with the "moralization" (hence trivialization) of the history of Native Americans. Having laid this base, in another submission I will show where Mr. Schuster's views on stereotypes lead. And later, finally, will show how all these matters are connected with the extremely serious question of "Indigenous peoples' rights of ownership."

There are issues which are very basic to the American "social contract" connected to all these things. In a republic or democracy, in Locke's terms, "the people shall judge." But here I am concerned only with how scholar's-- one small part of "the people"-- judge. My specific data are those on Native North American prophetic movements-- used mostly because I have control of the data and believe that my interpretations cannot be (at least effectively) challenged, no matter the source of challenge. If I here limit treatment to prophets, the story for many other areas of American Indian history is quite parallel.

Prophetic movements (which I have studied on a world wide basis) are a class of social movements of basic importance in the shaping of much of world history. Although few realize this, and very many would challenge me, for many different reasons, ALL of the world's "great religions," as presently known, were shaped by prophets. One of the difficulties with Martin Marty's "Fundamentalism project" is the failure to properly situate fundamentalism within the processual connections of on-going prophetic traditions.

The charismatic institution criticized here is the Newberry Library Indian Center, which to my mind has done more harm to scholarship on American Indian history than all other institutions put together-- with the possible exception of the University of Oklahoma Press (which deserves a study in itself).

The resources for the study of American Indian history at Newberry are staggering. Newberry, however, was long pinched for money, so the resources could not be effectively used by scholars. Under Darcy McNickle, then "Fritz" Jennings, outside sources, especially foundations, put up money for a fellowship program. Jennings was a historian who felt that anthropological concepts had no real role in Indian history (and I am quite aware of the nature of the opposite case which some will try to make on seeing this). Almost until retiring, Jennings had written only small gems. Later he would turn to treating "the big picture," at least for Indian history of the Eastern U.S., which was quite clearly lacking in any real knowledge of anthropology or anthropological concepts. In the eyes of some historians, however, Jennings became a major figure in Native American history.

There can be no doubt that had Raymond DeMallie then taken the directorship of the Newberry Indian Center that the direction would have changed, both for Newberry and American Indian ethnohistory in general. But when De Mallie declined the directorship, it was given to Fred Hoxie, who had little background in Native Americans at the time. Jennings at least did not believe that the ultimate end of historical research on American Indians was to help them in the present day. There are many, many reasons to believe that Fred believes this. (Hoxie, it should be noted, very interestingly, is now professor of history at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and is one of the most outspoken advocates of elimination of indian mascot names.) WIth this Newberry background, I can now turn to prophets.

Although on a world-wide basis, the literature on prophetic movements is very rich, the basic book for North America, more than a hundred years old, is still Mooney's book on the Ghost Dance. .There are only seven post-World War II books which are essential to anyone concerned with the North American Indian movements. Three of these are by anthropologists: David Aberle (on Navajo Peyote}; Omer Stewart {on the Peyote Religion); Anthony F.C. Wallace ("The Death and Rebirth of the Seneca"). All of the mentioned publications are great books by great and truly gifted scholars. There are four other essential books by more or less competent scholars. Three of these are by historians: Edmunds (Tecumseh); Dowd ("A Spirited Resistence"): Sugden (Tecumseh). The fourth is by the anthropologist Hittman (Wovoka) In addition there are dozens of books, and hundreds of papers which must be consulted to supplement these-- only about a dozen of the papers of which are truly essential (including the short papers on Wodziwob, Wovoka, and Porcupine in Oxford U.Press's " American National Biography"). But nothing of importance can be added to the literature without an incredibly massive study of huge and dispersed archival material. The basic ordering principles cannot be found from what has actually been published, because their are very crucial data points which simply are unknown to all who have dealt with these matters (without truly massive archival research).

In short, three of the seven core books (all written by historians) have come out of the Newberry fellowship program. Only Dowd made even minimal use of anthropological concepts. So none of these three scholars has even a glimmer of what the prophetic movements on which they wrote at such length were really about, and how these unmentioned things were, in fact, absolutely central in understanding the social cultural processes (and hence to the explanation of particular actions and events). Edmonds and Sugden are so uniformed that they specifically argued that the Shawnee Prophet, not Tecumseh, was the more significant "historical figure" !

Such "cut and paste history," as Collingwood called it, simply cannot be taken seriously as scholarship. That Robert Darnton has brough "ethnogrpahic context" to mainstream history means, likely, that the inadequacies of Newberry-style Native American history will, relatively soon, be recognized for just what it is.

My argument, however, does not imply, at all, that good historiography must necessarily always involve the appropriation of anthropological concepts. In the first place, the Annales school of historiography has argued, beginning with somewhat different assumptions than anthropologists, that to understand the specifics of immediate interest, the historian must have very wide understanding of the social, political, and so on, background of a specific place and time. In essence, this provides "generalizations" which define the "usual case" against which one examines the specifics. And there are few, if any, solid reasons to argue that the Annales approach can be traced back to specific anthropological formulations.

Even more to the point-- that historiography does not necessarily have to appropriate anthropological concepts-- is the case of medieval hitoriography-- which is one of the truly glorious achievements of humanity. Whether or not the "absolute truth" can be ascertained of any matter, thousands of historians, in the course of generations, have built up a magnificent context based on minute consideration of existing evidence, analytically weighed in terms of minute specific circumstances. This is what anthropologist have for American Indians, and historians have yet to plow the archives in the way necessary to form their own, documentary based web of circumstances. Newberry Indian history virtually ignores the circumstances contexts available for American Indian history.

It is not enough, however, to demonstrate the inadequacies of Newberry-style Indian history. Fred Hoxie and his associates use inadequate historical knowledge to provide (just as Mr. Schuster has) the basis for "moral arguments" on all matters Native American.

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that Fred Hoxie's procedure in his moral arguments, as in the case of Chief Illiniwek at UI-UC, is mostly in the form of "statements." He avoids free and open debate. It is notable, I think, that one of his Illinois colleagues, the author of "Dancing at Halftime" put in a brief appearance early on in this colloquy. And she was one of those, who with Fred, signed the open letter on mascots to the new chancellor of UI-UC printed in The Chronicle.

The evidence is equivocal, but the majority of Illinois citizens aware of the issue (many more than some people think) seem to want to retain the Illinois mascot. The present governor, and more than one past governor have defended the mascot. I do not want to be taken as a defended or attacker of mascots. My point is much more important than the specifics of what happens to the Illinois mascot. What Fred Hoxie must be saying, to argue what he argues, is this: "I have examined the situation, and have drawn my moral conclusions. "The people" are wrong." Does Fred believe that "the people shall judge?" Certainly, as long as they believe what he does.

Finally, however, it is clear that there are at least some situations where "the people" are or have been wrong. It would seem incumbent, then, on those who would convince "the people" of their error, that they enter into debate on the issue. It is a very safe proposition to say that "the people" are tired of having things rammed down their throats. Should Fred really be interested in social harmony, rather than the assertion of his own moral views, he might heed the new social situation which is emerging, and act accordingly.

-- Melburn D. Thurman (posted 5/11, 4:40 p.m., U.S. Eastern time)

previous response

next response

STEP 1: Your contact information (required)

Your name: Your title & institution: Your phone: Your e-mail address:

STEP 2: Your comments

STEP 3: Submit!

Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored.

The Chronicle maintains Colloquy as an open forum where readers can comment on issues. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity, but editing is kept to a minimum. We correct errors in spelling, punctuation, etc. In addition, we remove statements that have the potential to be libelous or to slander someone. In cases in which people make claims that could be libelous, we will remove the names of institutions and departments. But in those cases, we will not alter the ideas contained in the submissions.

Please read our privacy policy or our Colloquy help page if you have questions.

Check this box only if you would like this submission to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor in the printed Chronicle.